Cessna 402

On 26 July 2020, at 12:46 local time (02:46 UTC), a Cessna 402C aircraft, registered VH-TSI collided with trees during an aborted take-off at an uncommissioned field near Papa-Lealea, about 16 nm North-West of Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. The pilot, during interview with the AIC, stated that he departed at 09:30 that day from Mareeba Airport, Queensland Australia and tracked towards the North North-East with a planned track set slightly left of Jacksons International Airport, Port Moresby, National Capital District, Papua New Guinea. As the aircraft neared the Southern shoreline (within the Caution Bay area), he diverted left and began tracking towards the North West along the coast in order to avoid flying over villages in the area. He subsequently crossed over land before turning back to approach the intended landing field. As the aircraft approached to land, the outboard section of the left wing was clipped by a tree and separated from the aircraft. According to the pilot, he continued on with the approach and landed on the field at about 12:20. The pilot reported that he had flown to and within Papua New Guinea in the past and was familiar with the area and airspace. He confirmed that after departing Mareeba, he switched off the transponder. After shutting down the aircraft, the aircraft was refuelled with jerrycans full of fuel (AvGas) and loaded with cargo by persons waiting on the ground. The pilot reported that he estimated that a distance of 800 m would be required for the take-off. According to the pilot, at about 12:40, he lined up and commenced his take-off roll from the Southern end of the field. As the aircraft lifted off, he noticed that the airspeed indicator (ASI) was not working. He also observed that the aircraft was not achieving a positive rate of climb. He subsequently pulled the throttles back and manoeuvred the aircraft back towards the ground. The aircraft touched down with a speed that the pilot described as higher than normal, with about 400 m of usable field remaining. The aircraft continued off the end of the field and into the bushes clipping trees along the way until it came to rest. The pilot informed the AIC that he was the sole occupant of the aircraft, and sustained minor injuries as a result of the occurrence. The aircraft was substantially damaged. The investigation confirmed that the fire to the left wing and engine was a post-accident event and was deliberate. The pilot was later arrested and a load of 500 kilos of cocaine distributed in 28 bales was found at the scene.

According the commercial pilot and a flight instructor rated check pilot, they were conducting their first long-duration, aerial observation flight in the multiengine airplane, which was recently acquired by the operator. They departed with full fuel tanks, competed the 5-hour aerial observation portion of the flight, and began to return to the destination airport. About 15 miles from the airport, the left engine fuel warning light illuminated. Within a few seconds, the right engine stopped producing power. They attempted to restart the engine and turned the airplane toward an alternate airport that was closer. The pilots then turned on the electric fuel pump, the right engine began surging, and soon after the left engine stopped producing power. They turned both electric fuel pumps to the low setting, both engines continued to surge, and the pilots continued toward the alternate airport. When they were about 3 miles from the airport, both engines lost total power, and they elected to land on a highway. When they were a few feet above the ground, power returned briefly to the left engine, which resulted in the airplane climbing and beginning to roll. The commercial pilot pulled the yoke aft to avoid a highway sign, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall, and subsequent impact with trees and terrain. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. Although both pilots reported the fuel gauges indicated 20 gallons of fuel remaining on each side when the engines stopped producing power, the flight instructor noted that there was no fuel in the airplane at the time of the accident. In addition, according to a Federal Aviation Administration inspector who responded to the accident site, both fuel tanks were breached and there was no evidence of fuel spillage.

En route from Ciudad del Este to Asunción, the pilot encountered technical problems and reduced his altitude to attempt an emergency landing. The twin engine airplane belly landed in a prairie and slid for few dozen metres before coming to rest. All four occupants evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The private pilot was conducting a local, personal flight. The pilot reported that he checked the weather conditions at three local airports before the flight but stated that he did not trust the wind reports. He added that he did not get a preflight weather briefing. Once at the destination airport, he conducted two go-arounds due to gusting wind conditions. During the third attempted landing, he made a steep approach at a normal approach speed and flared the airplane about midway down the 3,000-ft-long runway. The airplane floated down the runway for much longer than the pilot expected before touching down. Despite applying maximum braking, there was insufficient remaining runway to stop, and the airplane skidded off the runway, impacted trees, and subsequently caught fire, which resulted in substantial damage to the airframe. The wind conditions reported at an airport located about 13 miles away included a tailwind of 16 knots, gusting to 27 knots. Given the tailwind conditions reported at this airport and the pilot's description of the approach and landing, it is likely that the pilot conducted the approach to the runway in a tailwind that significantly increased the airplane's groundspeed, which resulted in a touchdown with insufficient runway remaining to stop the airplane, even with maximum braking.

The twin engine aircraft was departing Bahía Solano-José Celestino Mutis Airport on a flight to Quibdó, carrying seven passengers and two pilots. During the takeoff roll on runway 36, the airplane deviated to the right and veered off runway. While contacting soft ground, the right main gear collapsed. The aircraft rotated and came to rest in a grassy area about 5 metres to the right of the runway. All 9 occupants evacuated safely and the aircraft was damaged beyond repair.

The pilot departed on the non-scheduled passenger flight with one passenger onboard; the flight was the 3rd leg of a 4-leg trip. About 13 minutes after departure, he advised air traffic control that the airplane was “fuel critical” and requested vectors to the nearest airport, which was about 7 miles away. Both engines subsequently lost total power and the pilot performed a forced landing on a street about 2 miles from the airport, during which the airplane collided with two vehicles. Examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the fuel tanks, with evidence of a small fire near the left wingtip fuel tank. Fuel consumption calculations revealed that the airplane would have used about 100 gallons of fuel since its most recent refueling, which was the capacity of the main (wingtip) tanks. Both fuel selectors were found in their respective main tank positions. Given the available information, it is likely that the pilot exhausted all the fuel in the main fuel tanks and starved the engines of fuel. Although the total amount of fuel on board at the start of the flight could not be determined, had all tanks been full, the airplane would have had about 63 gallons remaining in the two auxiliary tanks at the time of the accident. The auxiliary fuel tanks were breached during the accident and quantity of fuel they contained was not determined. Examination of the engines revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.

The commercial pilot stated that, shortly after taking off for a cross-country, personal flight and while accelerating, he noticed high airplane nose-down control forces and that the airplane became increasingly difficult to control. He used manual trim to attempt to trim out the control forces and verified that the autopilot was not engaged; however, the nose-down tendency continued, and the pilot had trouble maintaining altitude. During the subsequent emergency landing, the airframe sustained substantial damage. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the elevator trim push rod assembly was separated from the elevator trim tab actuator, and the end of the elevator trim push rod assembly was found wedged against the elevator's main spar. The elevator trim indicator in the cockpit was found in the nose-up stop position; however, the elevator trim tab was deflected 24° trailing edge up/airplane nose down (the maximum airplane nose-down setting is 6°). A drilled bolt was recovered from inside the right elevator; however, the associated washer, castellated nut, and cotter pin were not found. Examination of the bolt revealed that the threads were damaged and that the bolt hole on one of the clevis yoke halves exhibited deformation, consistent with the bolt separating. About 2 weeks before the accident, the pilot flew the airplane to a maintenance facility for an annual inspection. At that time, Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-07-24, which required installation of new hardware at both ends of the pushrod for the elevator trim tab, was overdue. While the airplane was in for the annual inspection, AD 2016-07-24 was superseded by AD 2016-17-08, which also required the installation of new hardware. The ADs were issued to prevent jamming of the elevator trim tab in a position outside the normal limits of travel due to the loss of the attachment hardware connecting the elevator trim tab actuator to the elevator trim tab push-pull rod, which could result in loss of airplane control. While in for the annual inspection, the airplane was stripped and painted, which would have required removal of the right elevator. Although the repair station personnel indicated that they did not disconnect the elevator trim pushrod from the elevator trim tab actuator when they painted the airplane, photographs taken of the airplane while it was undergoing inspection and painting revealed that the pushrod likely had been disconnected. The repair station owner reported that he reinstalled the right elevator and the elevator trim pushrod after the airplane was painted; however, he did not replace the hardware at either end of the pushrod as required by the ADs. Subsequently, the airplane was approved for return to service. After the annual inspection, no work, repairs, or adjustments were made to the elevator trim system. The airplane had accrued about 58 hours since the annual inspection at the time of the accident. Although reusing the self-locking nut might have resulted in it coming off by itself, the cotter pin should have prevented this from happening. Therefore, although the castellated self-locking nut, washer, and cotter pin normally used to secure the elevator trim pushrod at the elevator trim tab actuator were not found, given the evidence it is likely that the hardware, which was not the required hardware, was not properly secured at installation, which allowed it to separate in flight. It is also likely that the pushrod assembly then moved aft and jammed in a position well past the maximum nose-down trim setting, which rendered controlled flight impossible.